click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
, not just cutting the bloat in the pentagon budget so we don't have $500 hammers on a submarine, we're talking about saving money. my institute, the institute for policy studies, my colleague, marian pemberton has figured out we could save $200 billion just this year, not over ten years, in just the military side without doing anything that would put us at risk. >> what you have articulated is the progressive line on this which i am sympathetic to. but it is an austerian line. we're talking about raising taxes and cutting defense budget. what you're doing is diminishing the deficit and -- >> but actually the thing -- >> the military spending hurts our economy. >> in other words, this is basically -- what is so ironic about this is it kind of goes back to woodrow wilson, why are the fights so difficult or so vicious? because the stakes are so small. really in reality when you look at sequestration and we're talking about $85 billion this year, really only with $40 billion in real spending cuts, because of the way the budget operates with budget authority. you're looking at not a huge
? the pentagon. >> we're only a few weeks away from this. >> it doesn't make any political sense. >> it would be brutal for everybody. >> devastatiing effects on the economy. >> pushes us into a second recession, something so terri e terrible -- >> all right. settle down. >> they recognize that the sequester is a bad idea. >> i don't like the sequester. >> we see the republicans playing games. >> this is the wrong time for sequest sequestration. >> both sides are sort of okay with it. >> doing nothing is easier than doing something. >> republicans say cuts but no taxes. >> these cuts cost job. >> they don't even want to talk about it. >> who are the monsters who came up with the sequestration idea? >> guess what, they all support it. congress put it into place to force themselves to agree. >> dumbe esest blame game in washington. >>> it's time for another round of republican would you rather. we'll call this the sequester edition. today's question, would you rather go up against al qaeda or grover norquist? republican senator lindsey graham said al qaeda would love the defense cuts in the se
of the pentagon that i'm willing to do this. we are never again going to get to cut the pentagon back. the pentagon hasn't had any significant cuts for 30 years. >> josh green, is that the political equivalent of a liger, a lion and tiger combined to make an animal we have never seen before. rand paul and howard dean agreeing that the sequester should go through because, hey, defense -- >> hadn't occurred to me in quite those terms, but, yes, i suppose it could be a liger. >> there have always been contingent of liberal democrats that have wanted to go after the pentagon because its budget has grown enormously since 9/11. what you haven't had is a kind of republican analog. there have been a few people here, walter jones, congressman in north carolina, ron paul, in fact, was a big advocate of this, but only in the last couple of years, and really only in the last 18 months since the sequester cuts have loomed have you seen this tension between small government anti-tax republicans and pro-defense republicans. it's really a sort of tug-of-war between their two interests. traditionally
at the department of defense. let's ask the military. >> ask you for an update on pentagon drone operations. >> probably not. >> well, let's hear what you have to say when i ask the question. >> okay. >> it has now been widely acknowledged that the u.s. military earlier this year, the military, pentagon, flew drone operations over pakistan's border region in cooperation with the pakistanis to collect reconnaissance information and show it to them. can you talk about why the u.s. military is now flying drone operations or did fly drone operations over pakistan? >> i can't. i know you say it's widely acknowledged. i don't know how widely anything has been acknowledged on that count. i don't think it's appropriate for me at this podium to discuss operations that may or may not be taking place. >> what concerns do you have that these u.s. government drone strikes in pakistan may be backfiring now and simply creating more enemies of the united states? >> i refer your questions to other people. that's not something we speak to or are involved in. >> who would you refer them to, jeff? where should
, a member of the bush pentagon's defense policy board, michael hastings author of the new digital book "panic 2012, the sublime and terrifying inside story of obama's final campaign ♪ ♪ barbara siegel, also washington correspondent for the middle east website al monitor.com. great to have you all here. >> thank you. >> so i am -- well, where to start? i think the lessons unlearned to me was the most troubling. it seemed to me we had a moment in 2008 particularly in which president obama articulated this kind of alternative foreign policy vision and did so quite forthrightly. for instance, negotiations with iran and ahmadinejad. and somehow four years later, we've moved backwards, right? the old -- i guess as we've gotten further away from the debacle of iraq, as that's more remote in people's memory, there's more and more the sense of iraq ended up okay and you saw this -- i thought it was so interesting, it was the relitigation of the surge. because that in some ways is this key narrative plot point that somehow redeem tess entire war. and so you saw, for instance, john mccain, in
, will be with the pentagon. it is only when the nation views itself as being at peace that diplomacy can take some kind of equal footing. until we get to place where we do something as dramatic as repealing or refusing to reauthorize, the authorization of the use of military force and we end our hot wars, when we have a transparent discussion about what our activities are in terms of drones and targeted killing, only at the point the nation decides to call itself at peace can diplomacy actually ascend to some kind of parity. unless and until we reach that moment, it is impossible, politically and institutionally to get there. >> at some point i want to talk about when they announce in the spring that the u.s. is going to transition to no longer being in the lead role in afghanistan when they make that announcement this spring. i want to talk to you about whether or not it's significant if they're going to rename the operation in afghanistan, whether operation enduring freedom. >> that's really interesting. >> that will be our next conversation. >> hopefully before then. >> okay. chris hayes, thanks. ch
. but now, those repairs have stalled. the pentagon has stopped the upgrade indefinitely. because of next week's catastrophic budget cuts, that republicans refuse to stop on tuesday, president obama will head to that navy yard, navy shipyard. after republicans have their hypocrisy. the gop for this disaster in the making, and cuts that will start next friday will hurt our recovery and cost up to 700 thousand jobs. >> it has become clear that the cuts would have an adverse impact on families, on teachers, and parents who rely on head start programs. on our military readiness. on mental health services. on medical research. this is not smart way for us to reduce the deficit. >> not smart? >> the president was just being gracious. these cuts are crazy. not republicans are not letting them happen. especially to protect the rich. the american people don't want any of these cuts that are about to kick in next friday. 80% of spending cuts on education, just 10% want the cut. 83% oppose spending cuts for food and drug inspections. just 14% want them. and 81% oppose spending cuts for roads and inf
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)